Abstract
AbstractA characteristic feature of arbitration, a growing form of legal adjudication, is that each disputing party appoints an arbitrator. Commentators, however, suggest that party-appointed arbitrators tend to be biased in favor of their appointers. Evaluating this claim from data on historical disputes is problematic because of nonrandom selection of arbitrators. Here we use a novel experimental approach to estimate the causal effect of the appointing party. Using survey experiments with arbitration experts around the world, we show that professional arbitrators suffer from affiliation effects—a cognitive predisposition to favor the appointing party. At a methodological level, we offer a solution to the problem of measuring this effect when credible observational designs are lacking.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
